Technology, Science, and Genetics
1. The author Michael Crichton has presented the thesis that science has been so involved in asking, “could we?” that it never stops to ask, “should we?” Should we? Consider that before the Wright brothers “invented” flight, many people believed that humans were not meant to fly, therefore, we shouldn’t’ explore that possibility.
2. How is using genetic engineering for medical purposes (to avoid cancer, let’s say) or physical purposes (choosing hair and eye color) different from the vaccines, organ transplants, plastic surgery, ACT prep courses, etc. that we engage in now?
3. So many books and films have been devoted to the idea of science as the ultimate destruction of human civilization. Is it possible that it will contribute to our ultimate enlightenment? (Or a possible utopia?)
4. What are the dangers in our increasingly technological society? How might the advancement of technology contribute to our already unequal society? How is this dealt with in Gattaca? BNW?
5. If genetic engineering or eugenics will ultimately contribute to less suffering and more enjoyment, why wouldn’t we want to proceed wholeheartedly with experimentation?
1. What I noticed from my silent discussion was where we draw the line with science; when do we take it too far? Genetically engineering a baby before it is born is too far, but where does plastic surgery fall? Is it on the same level, or is it acceptable? It was also said that fate and chance should still be involved, however, when asked if disease was applicable to this, the some said no; we should get rid of the diseases. While others said that they should get a vaccination. But is there a difference? Either way, we are getting rid of the disease. When thinking about genetically engineering a child, a quote from Gattaca comes up, “It’s still you, just the best of you.” This truly is the case, but where do we draw the line when physical, intellectual and heath all play factors.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the written responses that stands out most to me is how complicated the topic of the advancement in technology can be. I have read in the responses about so many positives technology can do to a society, like curing diseases or improving in other types of research, technology saves time, and technology gives us the ability to keep learning more and more about the world and what is all around us. On the other hand though, I along with the other responses agree on the fact that technology is slowly creating a negative impact on our society. Examples of this would be people who choose to talk online instead of in person, people playing football video games instead of actually going out and getting an exercise while really playing, people may misuse technology in negative ways (such as war), and some people take advantage of technology such as putting viruses on computers. In both cases, it is so difficult to pick a side on whether the rapid advancement of technology is a good thing or not. As of now, I think our technological level is in a good place, but in many years to come, people may become dependent of technology every minute of the day.
ReplyDeleteChapter 1 of Brave New World talks all about how babies are produced in this society. I think this advancement in technology is taking over the society because to me, they are pretty much producing robots. The way these babies are produced, they do not have the same feelings that we have in our society, and they certainly do not have the desire to be a better person because they are told to only learn what they need to know. To me, learning new sciences and medicines are a great thing, but when you get to the point of pretty much being able to produce babies in a factory, you have gone way too far. Especially with the fact that on page 9 they talk about how they sometimes will give a baby an oxygen shortage to make him look different. Picking and choosing how a baby is born takes away from individuality and creativeness out of humans. This passage takes technology to a whole new level that I hope our society will never fall into the trap of.
1) The silent discussion topic I chose to write about was technology, science and genetics. From the silent dialogue responses, two themes stand out. The first theme is that there are definitely two types of scientific advancements. One type is science involving humans—genetic altering and eugenics. The other type is science relates to objects and technological advancements. The second theme that stood out in my silent dialogue is the questioning of ethics and moral values concerning scientific advancements. These are the two themes that I would like to discuss thoroughly to see how my opinions on these issues compare with my classmate’s opinions.
ReplyDeleteI think science that relates to objects has few moral implications. The only moral issue that comes to mind is the issue of using environmentally friendly materials, and I believe most everyone would agree with a “green” stance. Therefore, I think that this type of science should explore every possibility put forth.
However, science that involves humans has numerous moral concerns. Should scientists whole-heartedly proceed with stem cell research? Should parents have the choice of choosing their offspring’s hair color? Eye color? Should doctors genetically engineering people to be healthier? Should we clone humans? Obviously, the questions of scientific morality are ceaseless. I cannot answer all of these questions, but I do have my own opinions on them. For example, in response to the first question I would say that yes, scientists should proceed with stem cell research. My personal opinion is that an embryo is not a human being, and a single embryo can be (and should be) used to save many lives. I know there are many people that would completely disagree with me. Overall, my view on science involving humans coincides with a passage from A Brave New World, “ Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science” (225). Ironically, this comes from the “controller” of a society that preaches, “science is everything” (225). This shows that even though science is excellent, it is necessary to examine ethics completely when the science involves humans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"We can't allow science to undo its own good work. That’s why we’ve so carefully limited the scope of its research…" Mustapha Mond, (227)
ReplyDeleteScience is not inherently evil. In fact, science provides a plethora of benefits for society. Science can be used for medical advancement, and for finding cures to devastating diseases. More importantly, science brings us closer towards the discovery of ultimate truths about the meaning of existence and the world around us.
However, the society in Brave New World shows how technology created by science can be misused with devastating effects. In his quote on pg. 227, Mond purposefully confuses science, a source of truth, with technology, a source of "social stability." Mond recognizes the social stability that technologies such as genetic engineering, hypnopaedia, soma, etc. provide, (each produced by science) and values that over the potential social instability that pure science could create. Brave New World's society is willing to limit out pure science and accept emotion-numbing technologies (Passion surrogates and soma) at the price of systemic genetic discrimination, individuality, and substance.
I chose to discuss a question concerning limitations on scientific developments, specifically if as a society we should be asking the question ‘Should we?’ instead of ‘Could we?’ I focused on the issue of genetic engineering, which is implemented in both the World State and the Gattaca society. I fear that the type of genetic engineering used in Gattaca is very plausible and is very close to becoming a reality. This is when I believe we need to be asking ourselves if this is really what we want to do to the human race. Imperfection is an important part of the human identity and is what produces culture and creativity.
ReplyDeleteClassmates who responded to my question agreed that people in our modern society constantly strive for perfection in their lives, so what would stop everyone from wanting to be genetically perfect as well? It was then brought up that this need to be perfect would eventually lead to sameness across all of humanity because there are rigid expectations of perfect qualities in our society. Both societies used genetic engineering to guarantee a class system that the leaders could control; the World State purposefully stupefying Epsilons to do menial work while the naturally born people in Gattaca were denied equal rights.
While in an ideal world I would like to stop this capability from materializing, we have previously discussed the fact that scientific development sees no bounds and has no morals. It cannot be hindered, and a classmate responded that trying to stop genetic engineering is “not an option.” The World State saw science as a “possible enemy” (Huxley 225) and went to great lengths to ensure control of scientific innovations. Science was seen as “incompatible with happiness… [and] dangerous,” and this is what Mustapha Mond uses to justify the means by which the Controllers “keep science carefully chained and muzzled” (Huxley 225). The goal of the World state is stability and scientific innovations cause drastic instability; their solution is thus to deny the people any knowledge of science at all. They take away the tools they need to even ask a scientific question, they are told “recipes” that can never be altered.
I feel strongly that we must tread very carefully in the upcoming reality of genetic engineering and many of the new scientific advancements being developed currently or we will face the consequences of a ruined humanity.
1. Genetic engineering is very possible in the near future and with it comes many benefits. Before we take action, as a society we need to ask ourselves if this is ethical. There are many benefits to genetic engineering such as, preventing diseases, illnesses, disorders, and disabilities. With this technology we could cure cancer! No one would ever have Down syndrome or cerebral palsy again! In the future people will not know suffering. They will be “getting rid of everything unpleasant instead of learning to put up with it” (238) and they will, “neither suffer nor oppose” (238) in tragedies, as John, The Savage, says in Brave New World. This would prevent a person from having obstacles and struggles in their lives, which builds character, perseverance, and individuality. The most influential people in history have faced at least one obstacle and used it to change the world. This is because they learned how to deal with hard situations. Peoples’ flaws create individuality and make people unique. If no one had flaws, then everyone would be the same and there would be no progress. There would be less diversity and everyone would have the same ideas and enlightenment would no longer be present.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the only reason that we aren’t proceeding with stem cell research is because it is thought to be “unethical”. Why is it unethical to try to build a fetus and try to make a human in an untraditional manner? And is ethical to torcher prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? One is trying to make a person, where as the other is trying to scare a person to have a near death experience. Not only that but cloning can be very beneficial to our society, like said before if one person is sick they will be able to have a blood transplant from their clone, or even get a body part from there. Here though, is where I see it becoming unethical. Taking away a body part from a person that is still living (even if it is a clone) is wrong and it is making that person’s quality of life worse. I still feel like the research should continue, because it truly is like the Wright brothers and no one believing that humans will have the ability to fly.
ReplyDeletei agree with Maayan in the fact that it is ethical to clone someone to benefit them in case they lose a limb or something internally. But i strongly feel that stem cell research should continue because if scientists can study it down to the point where they can take the DNA from one human and duplicate a persons limb or any vital organs that people need to survive. It is a lot broader of a topic when you look into what the possibilities are when you look deeper into the subject. Does anybody think that by doing that it makes stem cell research more acceptable?
ReplyDeleteThis book, Brave New World significantly talks about the dangers over powerful new technologies such as stem reasearch. I see Maayan and Zach's points on being ethical and unethical on the research, however, i think it is more important to deirectly relate this use of tech to people's happiness and this certainly talks about my reasearch topic - defining happiness. Will those new, powerful technologies truly make people happy? Will theey possibly make this world an utopia?
ReplyDeleteBrave new world used several technological ways for people to achieve happiness. But responding to what Yien said..do these technologies make people happy and possibly make this world a utopian society? I would have to say YES! In my
ReplyDeleteAlso, databases such as Facebook create happiness and satisfac research I am using technology such as facebook to determine wheather or not it creates happiness for people. Through facebook people can stay connected to people all over the world. My paper is answering Yein's question of how technology creates happiness for people. Think about it, what would happen if Facebook was taken away for good....how would people react to that? How would half of its users spen their time?
Maayan, I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie Island, but Huxley wrote the novel that I believe that movie is based off of. They raised clones for “real” people who needed limbs or were unable to have children and then killed the clones when they were through with their purpose. I agree with Zach that we should continue to research the uses of stem cells. There are many benefits to discovering how to clone that I feel outweigh the opposing arguments against it. Cloning, maybe not whole people but individual body parts and organs, would be a major advancement in technology and has the potential to increase the average human lifespan, which is what we are doing by trying to eradicate disease. Obviously there is a limit to scientific discovery that should not be reached, but I don’t believe that stem cell research, if done correctly, would cross this point. The benefits of stem cell research could help anyone from a cancer patient to an amputee, which definitely makes it a cause for happiness.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben Gordon’s post, I agree that science is not inherently evil, however if people aren’t careful, it quickly turned that way. It’s important to remember that the same science and technology that find cures to diseases and better our world also create nuclear weapons, and dangerous things to society. I agree that it is important to continue research and technological advances, however I think that we should be careful and hopefully not go too far with our progress.
ReplyDeleteI agree firmly with Becca that in striving for the absolute greatest we can be, people have lost sight of how we've destroyed the natural order. Progress cannot be altogether eliminated, but it seems as if the creature comforts we strive for will soon eliminate the risks in life that make it worth living. Sure, we might not live in the most stable world, but at least it has some trace of nature left.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben’s ideas when he states “science isn’t inherently evil,” because science is good and it has proved to be very beneficial for our society. Though science its self is not evil, if it gets into the wrong hands it can be life altering. If science in our society gets to the point of genetically producing children to be able to pick out exactly how you picture a “perfect” child to be then it will lead to competition, no individuality and more importantly the formation of a “perfect race.” Though this may come of to be a harsh example, in our discussion groups we compared genetically engineering humans to the Holocaust. Hitler attempted to create a master race by destroying those who he did not portray as perfect, or those without blonde hair and blue eyes. He selected those two qualities as what he deemed to be acceptable and pure and everyone who did not pass suffered. By given parents the chose of what their child will be like, as seen in Gattaca, it would set a standard for “perfection” and “purity” that should not exist.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Kristen. I would ask the question of whether or not technology really does make people happy. I would argue it makes them either artificially happier or no happier at all. The example of Facebook is a great one, but there are many others too. Facebook was created in 2004. Only four years ago. Before the advent of Facebook, people would talk to each other through either email or telephone. And people didn’t seem to be too depressed about this. And fifteen to twenty years ago, there were no cell phones. Only landlines. People couldn’t text others during school and couldn’t communicate with others whenever they wanted to. Yet they survived and on the whole seemed fairly happy. My point is that people have proven that they don’t need technology and instant communication to be happy. In the entire course of human history this technological advance is a very very recent event. And if Facebook was taken away for good, would that really be so terrible? I mean, people might have to actually communicate face to face, and people may be more productive with their time such as studying instead of procrastinating. It may also allow people to do more constructive activities such as going outside or reading a book instead of sitting in front of the computer. I would argue that although technology is certainly more convenient, it may make us less happy. It shifts our attention from the important things to, “when is (insert name here) going to text me back?”
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Alice T. said about science- it can be very beneficial to our society, but, if taken to an extreme, can become a very dangerous weapon used to create predestinies for everyone. I acknowledge the fact that being able to choose every trait of your own child may encourage prejudice by setting a standard for perfection when, in our society today, we are trying to move away from this single standard into a more general and diverse idea of perfection. However, if we are able to maintain a limit on how science can be used for genetic engeneering, I think that it would be extremely helpful and humane to use it to help the human race by eliminating crippling sicknesses and horrible diseases. This, of course, has another side to it, such as longer life expectancy (which could be argued as a pro or con), but using science to help the greater good by getting rid of sickness would certainly be advantageous to everyone, particularly those expected to inherit these sicknesses.
ReplyDelete1) From the responses of my topic, I would like to discuss further how the advancement of science and technology could lead to the destruction of our individuality. In my responses it seemed that all of us agreed on the fact that though technology may help us in many ways in the long run, it may also lead to our individual extinction. By striving to perfection such as having no more emotion, or by “Playing God” and creating or giving different characteristics to babies, there is a chance that we could eliminate what makes us human. A big part about being human is being able to deal with your emotions and being able to make the best of what is given to you whether you are short, tall, athletic, or academically gifted. A good example is in the book Brave New World. In Brave New World, their society was driven to make themselves and everyone else perfect by removing emotion and everything that could create emotion. They believed that once they have gotten rid of emotion, and created a society with different values that everyone will be happy or perfect. They even created a drug called soma that takes away all emotion and brings you to a “happy” state of mind. However, by taking this drug and being conditioned to live in this society, one loses his or her individuality and becomes the same as everyone else in their social group. That person loses what makes them unique and therefore lives a life of conditioning.
ReplyDelete1) From the responses of my topic, I would like to discuss further how the advancement of science and technology could lead to the destruction of our individuality. In my responses it seemed that all of us agreed on the fact that though technology may help us in many ways in the long run, it may also lead to our individual extinction. By striving to perfection such as having no more emotion, or by “Playing God” and creating or giving different characteristics to babies, there is a chance that we could eliminate what makes us human. A big part about being human is being able to deal with your emotions and being able to make the best of what is given to you whether you are short, tall, athletic, or academically gifted. A good example is in the book Brave New World. In Brave New World, their society was driven to make themselves and everyone else perfect by removing emotion and everything that could create emotion. They believed that once they have gotten rid of emotion, and created a society with different values that everyone will be happy or perfect. They even created a drug called soma that takes away all emotion and brings you to a “happy” state of mind. However, by taking this drug and being conditioned to live in this society, one loses his or her individuality and becomes the same as everyone else in their social group. That person loses what makes them unique and therefore lives a life of conditioning.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Jordan and Becca said, how important is nature and the way the world was originally created? Jordan said, "Sure, we might not live in the most stable world, but at least it has some trace of nature left." Would it be possible to sacrifice all of nature in order to possibly make a better society? I think some people could argue that a better society would stem from more technology which elminates problems and most nature in our society (I don't necessarily agree with this point of view but am playing the "devil's advocate").
ReplyDeleteCara's post makes sense. Without pain, there is no gain. People will lose the ability to think for themselves, just like those in Brave New World. I think that if society reaches the World State's stage, it will be an end to all creativity. Scientific research will trickle down to a minimum because there is a lack of innovative ideas. Literature and History, as shown in BNW, will also die (because of lack of creativity, and in BNW's case, classics do not contribute to consumerism).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Becca in that imperfection is an essential component of human identity. Certain advancements in science have been working to fix these imperfections. Not only genetic engineering, but advancements in medicine and surgery are already beginning to mask our flaws. Becca claims that we must tread carefully or else we will face the consequences of a ruined humanity. This clearly demonstrates my point that a utopia exists in between the current state of the world and a dystopia. As we work towards becoming a utopia, we advance in areas, such as genetic engineering, in order to perfect the human race. If we overshoot just by a little, we will become that society in Brave New World or Gattaca, where people do not even see the irony of their ‘perfect world’.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mel. I understand what Becca and Jordan are arguing, but I don't necessarily agree. Without technology where would we be today? So much of technology betters our society. For example, it gets rid of disease, helps people stay as healthy as they can, and in general benefits our socity more than it hurts it in my opinion. Yes, I do think that with technology we loose humanity and individuality, but I don't think confomity is such a bad thing. In our society we need a certain amount of conformity to surive, we need the leaders. So with that being said I don't think it't right to predestine our children to all be the same, but there are many parts of science that are needed. We need science and technology to a certain point, but I do believe that if it gets to be too extreme it can be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of "should we" is entirely a matter of personal opinion. We all have to ask ourselves if we are willing to be disappointed by the possibly findings, despite how "new" and "cool" they are. Also, we have to understand the problems that may come up in doing research to learn more. It is frightening that we have to think about possibly creating things that we think will benefit our society and having them inevitably bring it down. I believe our progress is important, however I think we should slow down and drag out the length of time it takes to discover things. While this seems unreasonable, at least we'll be dead by the time our culture makes discoveries that end up in destruction of the world.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Brian. Technology is nice but it doesn’t necessarily make us happy human beings. I think that technology has surely made our lives easier and faster. But ease and speed aren’t what make people happy in our society. Everyone is a human being. We need to feel real emotions to be happy. The greatest problem that faces the new technological advents is the fact that it shows no emotion whatsoever. It is just there to do it’s purpose. I just can’t take people seriously unless I am talking to them in person. I could say anything online and then twist it around as any emotion. there is no trust with technology. How can something you can’t even trust be the source of your happiness. Things that make humans happy are other people, love, trust, friends, and family not blogs, IMs, or facebook chats. Another example, I have over 500 friends on facebook. Does that make me happy? No. It has no effect on me because I know that I am not really friends with all those people. No one has time to keep up all of those relationships. The bottom line is that technology is incapable of creating happy human beings. It makes our lives more convenient. It does not make us happy.
ReplyDeleteI agree in the sense that technology is not what makes us happy in life but thats never what it was intended for. It seems to me that no one remembers the days when internet and technology was made to make things faster and easier, it wasn't means of communication or a way to find your soul mate online it was purely to make everything better accessible form humans and to make everything quicker and easier. We are always hooked on how we can get things done faster and easier. The faster and easier it is, the better. But when it comes to communication through technology like text messaging, AIM, or Facebook it can have many positive and negative affects on us. Now there are so many different ways to communicate outside of the normal phone call or face-to-face. People are afraid to say the way they might truly feel now in person and use other means of technology to say how they might really feel. In our society we have almost used technology as a scape goat to get ourselves out of things we are too afraid to say or do in person. Think about it. How many people say things to someone online or in a text that they would never in a million years say to some ones face? It is causing us to be immature and hooked in the huge world of technology.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Zach's view on how dependent we have gotten on the use of technology and social networks. The problem that I see with the extensive use of those networks is that people might eventually forget what real communication is all about. It seems like people have gotten so used to talking to their friends online that they forgot that that’s not what communication is all about. Whenever I walk through the hallway, I hear people say the same sentence over and over again” I’ll facebook you about that”. What happened to calling people? To meeting them face to face? Everything is being organized through facebook: events, groups, photos and personal information. I don’t totally agree with the statement that facebook and other social networks have only bad effects on our life, but I also think that it is our responsibility to make sure that they don’t control our lives as much as they do right now.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Scott and Zach. As technology makes our lives that much more effortless, I think that the purpose of living will slowly begin to fade. I feel like people often try to fill that “hole” in their life with technology, or its close cousin, money. Paralleling that to technology, the important thing with technological advancement is that one of the fundamental attributes of a happy person is to have a feeling of self-accomplishment through critical thinking, training, hard work, and social interaction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Zach has to say about cloning and how we can use it to help us survive by replacing our vital organs or limbs and things like that. But I feel that if we were to start cloning people it would take away the things that make us individuals. Kind of like what happened in Brave New World. Does anyone else agree? I would also have to agree with the people that said technology is something that makes everything easier. But what are the things that have to do with technology that we could do without? What things with technology do we actually need in our daily lives?
ReplyDeleteI think that cloning someone is ethical as long as the purpose of it is to help create another opprotunity for a person to live. I think if it can be used to prolong a human lifespan, then it could definately help prevent these diseases as well as create more opprutunity to evolve. Does anybody think that this is involved in the story with the stem cell research?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cara's post that people's flaws make each person individual and unique. I am pretty sure that if a parent were to pick the things they would want for their kid, they will pick best out of the best. If most of the kids were all "created" in that same process, then where is the uniqueness? When everyone becomes the "same", then it will defeat the purpose of the line that goes, "everyone makes a difference". Everyone will not make a difference when everyone is practically the same. If Even though through genetic engineering, we can get rid of all the negative aspect of life, it will defeat the purpose of an individuality.
ReplyDeleteAdding to what Jennifer said about their being no uniqueness... I agree that they’re wouldn’t be anything to change about ourselves because we would be basically "perfect". Living in a world today where everyone is different and special in their own way makes living more interesting and unpredictable. For example, Lenina says "When the individual feels, the community reels." Ch. 6 pg. 94. This quote could be used to explain the lack of individuality by the uses of genetic engineering. Furthermore, I think there is still a possibility that everyone can make a difference because they’re outer appearances may be the same, but think about it you cant make everything truly the same about everyone. There's always a little difference in personality and the way people think right? I agree that there would be no individuality and differences between persons in the world.
ReplyDeletei agree on the fact that both jennifer and christen have brought out. Being 'perfect'? and living an "Utopia"? Will being perfect certainly make our lives much easier and happier? There will be no more individualities in this society. If everyone gets everything they want, what would be the goals of our lives?
ReplyDeleteI don't think having a perfect life will make everything about life happy, but for the most part yes. I think it will because we won't have to worry about pain, loss, and hurtful things of that nature if everything were perfect. You are totally right when you ask, what will be the goals in life! It wouldn't be, there would be nothing to work for nothing to achieve. That's not a challenge. I think individuals gain insight, personality from the obstacles they overcome. I know I do.
ReplyDeleteIf life was perfect and we had no obstacles to overcome or struggles throughout our lives it would almost be as if we had nothing to live for anymore. Everything anyone does has purpose and for the most part it is to make their lives better. People go to school to learn as much as they can to get the best job they can, they work as hard as they can to have a family and provide for their family to the best of their abilities. Of course there will be struggles and rough times along the way but thats just how life is. Even in a world as perfect as in Brave New World there are issues and problems that happen on a day to day basis. While some people may always want to try achieve the "perfect life" im not even too sure that they may be possible. I personally feel people make their lives how they choose to make them, especially somewhere like America where people are allowed to think, speak, and act freely, people really have the opportunity to take their lives into their own hands whether its for the better or the worse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with zach when he says if we had no obstacles to overcome or struggles throughout our lives it would almost be as if we had nothing to live for anymore. Much of who i am today is because of the struggles i have had earlier in my life. A lot of people learn a lot about themselves when they go through a rough time. Hard times a apart of life, and everyone has to go through these times at one point in their life. These rough times help a person gain responsibility as well. A hard time may be fighting through a sickness. One must be responsible about how to recover from the sickness. If scientist one day make it possible for their to be no sickness in the world, then no one would ever learn the responsibility of personal hygiene. How to take care of oneself is one of the most important responsibilities a person learns in their life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with danny when he says there are so many positives with technology these days, like trying to figure out ways to cure diseases, and just allow us to learn more and more things everyday. I also agree that technology could be a negative impact like video games ruining kids lives if they become addicted.
ReplyDeleteLike many people have said, technology can be both positive and negative in many ways. It can be positive in a way that it helps increase human health in the area of medicine. In general, technology helps people in various places and times of their lives. However, technology can definitely be a negative influence to humanity. Take the example of nuclear weapons and the Cold War. The nuclear warhead was initially created to end World War II, but instead, it caused the Soviet Union to adopt nuclear technology and caused an unecessary war for almost fifty years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristen in BNW they used several technological ways for people to achieve happiness and to also respond to yeins question about technology and happiness, i would have to say without technology in our society today people would be deprived. I say this because people need technology for many things such as research for school or entertainment. People, especially teens, depend on their cell phones for communication because it is such a fast and simple way. Without technology, people would feel so deprived and isolated because it would take longer to communicate with someone or you cant go home and watch television or go on the internet. Technology runs everyones lives without people even noticing it. If somoene disagrees with this, i would like to hear their opinion.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with kirsten on this one! You don't need a "perfect" life to be happy. To answer yein's question about technology and happiness, i think in todays society people wouldn't know what to do if they didnt have technology. Our society is a very advanced technological society and people rely on it to do there jobs everyday. I also agree with Jaber that technology does run our lives.
ReplyDelete